Pages

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

It's spring time in Texas! One of the perennial rites of spring is the mating ritual of buzzards, which I can't avoid seeing I get to observe from my rural home. I suppose it is wonderful to a buzzard. I guess it may even serve the greater good, in the grand, cosmic scheme of things. But from my point of view, necessary as it may be, it is never pretty. Never.

I was pondering this the other day as I passed a trio of amorous buzzards in mid...er...courtship. Not at all strangely, my mind was immediately drawn to comparisons of the RNC, and to Michael Steele.

Now, it must be understood that I do not know Mr. Steele, though I have at times past thought very well of him. I am not a denizen of the DC swamp, nor even the Tidewater of anyplace east of the Sabine. So, I cannot claim to have ever rubbed elbows with any RNC types of any rank whatsoever. That is my blessing and my curse, I suppose. I bear it with perverse pride.

Nor would it be true to say that I hold anything but sort of neutral views of Mr. Steele even now. Or that I deplore his helmsmanship over the RNC vessel, even while recognizing it has had its ups and downs.

But it would be fair to say that buzzard sex naturally calls to my mind the RNC in its present iteration. It may be wonderful to the species. I guess it may even serve the greater good, in the grand, cosmic scheme of things. But it is ALMOST never pretty, and sometimes it's down-right unpleasant to observe.

I think The Daily Caller FAILED the other day in publishing the story about the bondage-themed expenditures. I'm satisfied that Mr. Steele had no direct connection to the whole, sordid deal.

But...in a day when so VERY many of us are just sick to death of the ruling class spending our money like it's THEIR water...the atmospherics were just rotten.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

When you hear a Deemocrat saying "choice and competition" in the same breath where they are advocating a compulsory ANYTHING, you know that you are being lied to.

Even in our nation, where economic education is abysmal, most high-school kids could tell you that monopolies are bad. Beyond that, the collectivist public school shibboleth they've been taught takes over and they explain how capitalism breeds monopoly, and how it takes the enlightened policy of a powerful government to keep them at bay.

That, of course, is the inverse of the truth.

In truth, one of the things that distinguishes market capitalism is its power and natural tendency to destroy monopoly. This was discussed by Adam Smith, who warned that incumbent members of the "merchant class" would naturally gravitate toward monopoly; it is human nature. He also said that the only time such an enterprise could survive for any length of time was for it to ally with government to obtain shelter from competitive market forces.

This is demonstrably true. Sometimes, from the inception of our Republic, society has seen some utility in granting a monopoly. Patents are an example, granting an inventor (or their assignee) a special temporary monopoly to foster innovation. The same is true of copyright. These are examples of the use, by design, of monopoly linked with government, intended to make the nation more prosperous, innovative, and culturally rich. But note that they are overt policy, and they are temporary.

Monopolies are, certainly, generally a bad thing if allowed to exist for long. They tend to be like dinosaurs that are kept artificially alive long after they are inviable in their environment. They are inefficient, costly, and produce inferior quality compared to what competitive enterprises would offer. If early computer makers held a monopoly, computers would still be enormous and incredibly expensive.

The period of the "trust-busters" was, in reality, a period where powerful interests used do-gooders and Progressives (collectivists) to gain government help in avoiding market forces. Railroads, for instance, were in a competitive environment for freight. They were the real force behind the birth of the Interstate Commerce Commission. While the press was full of talk about having government control rates for the benefit of the "little people", what the ICC did was control rates generally UPWARD. Regulation fosters monopoly or quasi-monopoly by restricting entry into markets by new players, with predictable results.

The collective paradoxically talks about hating monopoly, while collaterally insisting on it in its very worst form; the government itself. This is exactly what you have with single-payer health-care, our postal system, government education, and most publicly-owned utilities. Monopoly is the essence of socialism. But, unlike a private monopoly, these systems are all but immune to a law suit, or any chance that competition will challenge them. Often, you won't even have the choice of boycotting them.

Of course, everyone will not want a good Passover, but Jews and Christians observe this important time of remembrance and re-dedication. It has some very important...and fairly obvious...lessons for us in our time.

Israel had come into Egypt as honored guests. The rulers of Egypt recognized the God Of Israel, and the services of God's servants in preserving Egypt's people.

Over time, Israel came to be seen as a population of "others" to be exploited by Pharaohs who did not know the God Of Israel, and did not honor the historic contributions of His people. Israel, for its part, appears to have failed to extract itself from the slowly growing yoke of bondage, and had become dependent on "the flesh-pots of Egypt". In other words, they...like the serfs of Europe centuries later...were held in bondage by their hunger, rather than by actual chains.

Even as their bondage grew, Israel progressively forgot the God of Abraham and their unique relationship with Him, so that a Moses was needed both to act as a deliverer and a law-giver. Israel had, over time, adopted much of the idolatry they found dominating in Egypt, corrupting themselves as God's chosen people. They had also become slaves in their own estimation, changed from the people their fathers had been. God would require years to school a forgetful and polluted Israel, and an entire generation would be lost in wondering through the wilderness before Israel could be...finally...brought into the Promised Land.

When Moses came with the command of God "Let My People Go", the stiff-necked Pharaoh refused to hear him. Pharaoh's slaves were a valuable asset for Egypt, and he was more than willing to grind them in pursuit of his glory, and the glory of his line. Why not, after all? Egypt fed them, and housed them...made life possible for them. Egypt had every right to require their service in return. Now came this Moses to demand that, after all Egypt did for them, Israel should just be allowed to go out from Egypt...according to their choice.

Pharaoh would watch Egypt suffer under plague after plague, obstinate, self-absorbed, and able to rationalize each manifestation of God's existence, power, and will. He would not let the people go. He was, himself, a god after all. He was the law in Egypt.

Finally, Pharaoh himself, in a supreme act of hubris and barbarism, declared (as had one of his fore-bearers) that the first-born male of all the households of Israel would be slaughtered. He unknowingly called down the final, and unbearable, plague on his own people. God sent his Destroying Angel to visit Egypt with the same penalty that Pharaoh had decreed against Israel.

Israel...that portion of Israel that chose to obey God's word...was spared the terrible night of the Destroying Angel by marking their doors with the blood of a lamb. The Destroyer passed over those homes, but fulfilled the command of God respecting all other homes in Egypt.

I could elucidate each parallel from this powerful story to our time, but won't. Let those with eyes to see, see.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee.

I dunno about Mr. York's use of the term "demand". Waxman's letters use the term "request".

Public disclosure law REQUIRES that outfits like these discount their published worth, and publish the check-offs they have to take, in response to an altered business environment, so these companies are doing what the law requires of them.

Waxman's mau-mauing may get a lot more on record than he would like.

Regardless, and recognizing that I will never be the CEO of Caterpillar, my response to Waxman would be....

The ObamaCare bill was not just big...it was a big mystery to even those who championed it. It contains STATUTORY language that we learn...with every passing day...appears to mean something OTHER than what the collective thought it meant.

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurancecompanies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

But, as Squeaker Of The House Nannie Pelosi told us all, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it..."

Funny how those "law" thingies have to be worded just so... See, words really do mean things!

Don't ever forget, folks, these people know how to spend your money and freedom better than you...

UPDATE**

Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry Monday not to look for loopholes in health care legislation and informed it that she will be writing regulations to ensure that the industry covers children with preexisting conditions, which some insurers insist is not a requirement of the law.

"The American people debated and discussed health insurance reform for more than a year. Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," writes Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary. The letter was sent to top insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni on Monday and provided to HuffPost by a third party.

She lies...!!! The American people told the Obami and Deemocrats NOT to pass their crap-sandwich; to start over. They refused, and passed a bill that daily reveals NEW stupidity. The LAW is what it SAYS, not what She's Bilious DECIDES to make it say.

According to the latest Rich Load, there can be no legitimate, principled opposition to Obama or his collectivist agenda. No indeed. Those opposed are all of a type; racists, homophobes, misogynists, and...well...just Nazis.

If this weren't bad enough, Rich isn'tevenoriginal. Hardly that. This is the collective pack's current bay, taken up by every slobbering media sycophant in the kennel.

When you see something this homogenized, this unified in its use of the same hyperbolic labels, this coordinated, you can rest assured that this is the new meme...the approved party line. You can rest assured that it is the program of the collective, and that it's design it to marginalize, abominate, and demonize those of us who are fundamentally opposed to having our nation taken by the collective.

People like Rich are never troubled by the lies they print. They are never bothered by the fact of their own hatred. The patently fascisteconomicsof the ObamaCare bill is no impediment to their own risible invocation of Kristallnacht. They can, with a straight face, accuse Congressman Eric Cantor of a Reichstag putsch for his remarks detailing the shooting incident at his local congressional office (which really happened), while flogging the lies regarding the "N"-word, and calling Rep. Bwany Frank a burning branch (which NEVER happened). They have no problem turning a blind eye to the REAL hate-filled extremism they personify.

Here's a prediction; as the meme seems now so carefully to have been set, start looking for agents provocateurto show up at TEA Parties and other venues where peaceful Americans gather to resist the take-over of their nation. You will start hearing racial invective and other "hate-speech" shouted somewhere from an anonymous person in the crowd. It would be VERY wise for organizers to fashion an effective response when these people show up.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Socialism, in its broadest application is no bad thing. No, really. Get up off the floor, and let’s talk about this.

The term “socialism” is thrown around by all of us, and we use it carelessly sometimes. That leads to problems in our thinking, and in public discourse.

In its broadest use, socialism is a good thing. Virtually every American would agree with that statement. In that context, socialism means the process of spreading the effects of the vicissitudes of life out over a social network, so that one or a few of us are spared the pain of some of the bad things life can entail. Insurance is one example of this. So is your church charity, or an ad hoc group of folks holding a bar-b-que for a family with a sick kid, or any of a thousand other examples. It might not occur to most people, but a volunteer fire department is another example.

This is totally consistent with a correct understanding of MARKET CHOICE; it should be evident to any observer that there is a MARKET for voluntary socialism of this type. Americans historically are the most reliable people for choosing this market choice that have ever existed.

So long as socialism in this context is voluntary, we ALL think it is a good thing. None of us who believe in this feel the need to force it on anyone. That is extremely important.

When, however, we speak of STATE SOCIALISM, we leave the realm of volitional acts, and enter the world of compulsion. When most of us use the term “socialism”, this is what we mean. We are talking about the use of force to make us do something that others think is “good”. This involves taking property from us that is ours. Many of us are violently opposed to STATE SOCIALISM, and will fight it with everything we have.

But that is not to say that I, for instance, would be opposed in principle to the people of Massachusetts, say, deciding they wanted complete STATE SOCIALISM in their state. I would not live in that state, and so long as there are places of resort for people like me, I don’t care what some may choose to do. I think it would prove a VERY valuable object lesson, in fact. This is what is called FEDERALISM.

But that is never enough for the collective. They are driven to impose STATE SOCIALISM on the entire nation via the central government. It destroys the concept of FEDERALISM, by design. This cannot be allowed, because it destroys FREEDOM, or if you prefer DIVERSITY. That, of course, is the intent of the collective.

Therein is the great, existential, and implacable issue of this time in America. Some of us want to force the rest of us to do what they want done. Those of us who resist that imposition of tyranny will use every means to retain our liberty.

Friday, March 26, 2010

National embarrassment, and darling of the collective, Alan Grayson, called for Eric Cantor to resign. Resign from what? Everything, I suppose. Why? Because of his remarks about his office being shot at.

Got to love the black humor of the unhinged collectivist!!!

Get the part where he equates Cantor's comments to the

Reichstag Fire...!

Collectivist Grayson would understand the Riechstag ploy.

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states SHALL NOT be construed to include the power to mandate, regulate, prohibit or tax any activity that is confined within a single state and subject to the police power thereof, regardless of the activity’s economic effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme. No branch of the Federal government shall have power to compel economic activity, or alter otherwise legal private contract, except through bankruptcy.

"Earth Hour" is the neo-luddite, anti-rational feel-good notion of the Warm-mongering collective. During Earth Hour, you are supposed to turn off all lights at 8:30 pm, your local time. Of course, you can do more; maybe you can turn off the heat in your home, forebear from flushing your toilet...whatever.

Or, like me, you can observe Reason Hour, as I did last year.

My celebration honors the contributions of modern science, art, and technology. I celebrate by turning on every light in...and outside...my home, in honor of the incredible blessing of the electric light that gave humanity hours of extended, meaningful LIFE.

I run my appliances, using the water that plentifully flows into my home, unlike my ancestors whose very bodies were marked by the chore of hauling water into a place where it could be used.

I play my stereo LOUDLY, or watch a DVD recording on my TV.

I also make a point of GRILLING red meat over live coals.

And, as I do, I give thanks to the men and women who brought each of those benefits to humanity by the application of REASON, and to the God who gave to man the ability to think, to invent, to fashion, and to shape our environment.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

A concerted, coordinated campaign of race-tainted, violence-insinuating agitprop was launched concurrent with the passage of Obamacare.

On the day of the final House vote, jolly pranksters with video cameras marched through crowds of peaceful protesters, betrayed but law-abiding citizens, arrayed to voice (to deaf ears) their opposition to Obamacare. The camera wielders were there to provoke. It didn't work.

But no matter. A lie is as good as the truth for the ends of the collective. So, without a scintilla of evidence to support their claims, various "public servants" accused people of using racial epithets, spitting on them, and threatening violence. I emphasize: there is nothing to prove any of those claims. Unless, of course, you think that "spitting on a black man" happens every time a black man sits in the front row of a stage play. (See "stage spit", which I think is race neutral).

In other cases, people did...in their sense of betrayal, fear and loathing...leave messages on the answering machines of their "representatives" that were profane, vile, mean, and just wrong. Stupid. But that is hardly stop-the-presses news. It happens every day; mostly from the LEFT.

But you would never know that if you followed the world only via the MSM. Again, in a concerted, coordinated campaign, the trope was that this was new, frightening, and uniquely a product of an unhinged Right wing. If you doubt that, review this round-up. Scroll through.

This is far beyond coincidence. No, I am not suggesting a "conspiracy". It never requires that; only the very willing and ready tendency of people in the collective to pick up on the cry of the pack. That is all it takes. Fire ants don't "conspire" to attack you when provoked. They all know the signal, and they follow it.

But that is NOT to say that there is no design behind this; there most certainly IS. It is the design of Alinsky and the Frankfurt School. It is the same or very similar set of tactics we see constantly, around the world whenever the collective takes to the street...or steps before microphones behind young children with plausible anecdotes designed to supplant reason with emotion.

Give the New York Times some credit in reporting the retreat of Social Security into red ink … but don’t give them too much credit. We’ve been writing about this for the last few years, and when we wrote about it, we presented the entire political backstory, including how Barack Obama’s OMB Director Peter Orszag predicted in 2008, while running the CBO, that this day would come — in 2019. We included mentions of how Harry Reid and other Democrats insisted in 2005 that George Bush was scaremongering when he attempted to reform SSA through partial, elective privatization, and how they assured us that Social Security was safe for decades without reform.

Well, yeah, but Reid is a liar...

Al Gore (another name absent from this report) talked about a “lockbox” for Social Security assets, but they’re vaporware. It consists of Treasury IOUs that the US has to pay by selling more debt. The program has no hard cash of its own. As it falls into the red, benefits have to be paid through borrowing, whether the SSA does it directly or Treasury does it indirectly.

Milton Friedman told us all DECADES ago that this day was inevitable, that Social Security was the ultimate Ponzi Scheme. Anyone with a brain KNEW he was right, but Deemocrats loved Social Security for its value as a demagoguery mace par excellence, and would NEVER see it repaired, replaced, or saved.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

This is a story of "the Chicago way"; a study in how the collective behaves, as opposed to what it pretends. It is a story of how the "regular people" subsidize the elite, while the elite thump their chests about how good and committed to "social justice" they are. It is a case-study in the hypocrisy that B.H. Obama typifies, both in his past and today.

The story comes from Chicago, that bastion of the collective, very much the home of B.H. Obama. It involves the public schools there, and the duel track education system that was carefully crafted by very cynical "idealists"...cronies, actually...of the corrupt powers in government there, many of whom now warm the seats of power in Washington.

They [the well-to-do parents] were “dissatisfied with neighborhood schools” and so need to “jockey for a limited number of slots in well-regarded magnet schools, out-of-boundary schools or selective public schools that base admissions on criteria such as grades and test scores.” But the VIPs couldn’t really be expected to line up. One solution: a front door and a backdoor. That’s why Duncan’s list was secret, referring to a special list maintained by current Secretary of Education who then ran the Chicago school system. It contained a list of connected parents and special schools. Some school officials they denied there was any correlation between these two columns whatsoever. If there was a backdoor the rear entrance had no visible signs.

But those who could read the secret writing could find it. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune described the special glasses needed to understand the way things really work in the Windy City. He says the Daley dynasty designed it some things to be hard to see, unless you had the spectacles. “Today, I’m not going to rip on Daley. Instead, let’s focus on his brilliance, in creating Chicago’s two-tiered public school system. It bound the professional class to him and maintained him in power.” His Honor figured that the way to keep the professional class on his side was to corrupt some of them. So he built a two tier system, like a building with an executive washroom and a sewer. Those who wanted to use the executive washroom needed to find it. Most of all, they needed a key. Those who didn’t play could join the crowd or they could slip into their own environment where everyone was comfortable with everyone else amid the freshly changed linen and scented soaps. Kass explains:

The mayor knows how it works. He etched it into Chicago’s civic infrastructure years … When first elected in 1989, Daley eagerly reached out to those in the city’s predominantly white professional class. They were edgy and many were considering leaving Chicago.
In response, the mayor built top magnet and college prep high schools, pushing through work-rule changes to attract the best teachers. He produced the schools that nervous white-collar voters demanded.
Members of the professional class wanted city life. But they wanted their children educated. They became clients of Daley’s first tier. …
… education in the second tier remains abysmal. High school dropout rates are still around 50 percent, yet much higher when magnet schools are exempted. But even as tens of thousands of kids drop out to become calcified in the permanent underclass, the second tier still supports the mayor.
It’s not just about education. It is about jobs and patronage. Top teachers either fled or were lured to the top schools. But middle-rung teachers and below are the backbone of the teachers union.
The neighborhoods were rewarded with local school councils to elect, and budgets to manage and principals to appoint. By allowing the locals to run their mini-fiefdoms, Daley bound neighborhood activists to the system.
They were no longer beefers outside City Hall. They’d bought in.

We all known Arne Duncan, that all-American appearing whited sepulcher who runs Education, and who is seeing to it that the (poor minority) children of Washington are deprived of a voucher system that everyone knows is working. He's doing the bidding of his boss, THE ONE, Mr. HopenChange. It's the Chicago way. It's the way Obama absorbed and now exudes.

The Chicago school saga is fascinating for the penumbra which it throws over the possible management of Obamacare, whose architects hail from the same city as Daley Education. What if like Chicago, there were a fist of cold steel and rotting flesh beneath the velvet glove? Who could ever prove it?

And the question I ask is: "What American...worthy of that name...would ever tolerate the possibility?"

My favorite line from Kindergarten Cop: "It's not a tumor...", spoken to a tiny doomist who had leaped to the conclusion that his regular teacher was absent due to cancer.

In the world of perverted language and twisted reality, calling ObamaCare "insurance reform" takes the cake.

Insurance considers risk, and spreads it amongst a large pool. It rates individuals within that population of risks, using tools that have been proven rational predictors of an individual's contribution of risk. Sometimes, in order to keep rates low, it declines to accept an individual risk under any terms. It makes whatever profit it does because it successfully predicts risk.

If you tell a former insurance company...by law...that is HAS to accept all risks, period, it ISN'T an insurance company any more. It has become something else, as Jonah Goldberg ably observes:

A risk pool is an actuarial device where a lot of people pay a small sum to cover themselves against a "rainy day" problem that will affect only a few people. Such "peace of mind" health insurance is gone. What we have now is health assurance. With health assurance, there are no "risk pools" really, only payment plans.

By "payment plans", read TAXES, collected, if needed, at the point of a gun.

So, ObamaCare is not "insurance reform" except in the sense that fascism is "market capitalism reform". It is a complete conversion of health insurance industry into a corporatist collective, which does something completely different than it formerly did.

You can call it what you will, if you are part of collective. If you are not, you have more intellectual honesty.

It isn't insurance. And it wasn't "reformed". It was destroyed.

UPDATE: The fast-track to single-payer
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY5ZWRkNzQ1ZGM3YzIzYzkyN2ZkYWRlNmQ2YzJjYTE=

Sen. John Dingell: “The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

This is a very big theme, and will be the subject of several future posts. It is not a new theme to me; I've been writing about it for about twenty years now. I have never been alone in that. Some of the excellent company I've been proud to be a small part of includes Walter Williams.

Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

In law school, I learned of a constitutional revolution that was conducted and won without a shot by FDR and his collectivist minions. In the space of one year, Commerce Clause jurisprudence was completely reversed. Mark Levin notes the same sorry incident in his book, Liberty & Tyranny. The Supreme Court broke with all precedent, and vastly expanded the meaning of the Commerce Clause beyond any recognition of its plain meaning, or previous legal understanding, leading inexorably to the immense danger we today face from our central government.

Now, there are very serious legal scholars who are writing that the Commerce Clause can be stretched to compel you and I to purchase what we would not choose to purchase, at penalty of criminal law.

That, to me, is obscene. That, to me, is tyranny. That, to me, is intolerable, and must be resisted.

There is a coming day of battle. I speak of a battle of ideas and ideals. It will be fought to determine if this nation, chartered as a place of liberty UNDER LAW, can or will be reborn, wresting it from people who have perverted its design.

Will Americans turn toward their Constitution, restoring it carefully as the beating heart of this nation? Or will they allow it to simply die as the fundamental compact under which free people live? I know where I stand on that question, and what I will do and give in the struggle.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Remember when Crazy Nannie Pelosi told us that ObamaCare would create "4 million jobs...400,000 almost immediately"? Remember that whopper?

Well, we know that about 17,000 new IRS agents will be needed to TRY TO force us to comply with ObamaCare. But that's a long way short of 400,000.

We KNOW, because we are not economic idiots, that ObamaCare will be a job killer, as well as a terrible anchor on our economy. Guaranteed.

Remember yesterday, when I spoke of mourning the loss of the next new thing, and the loss of American economic vitality? Bryon York has this today:

The next option is to cut research and development -- a short-term, money-saving move that will surely cost Zoll down the road. And a third option, says Packer, is to "look at trying to shift jobs to lower-cost places around the world." That would be bad news for Massachusetts and the USA.

It's still not clear precisely how the new system will work. The Senate bill, which becomes law as soon the the president signs it, imposes the $2 billion annual tax on the industry starting almost immediately. The government would calculate the size of the entire medical device industry and charge each company a fee based on its share of the market. That's how Zoll estimates its part will be $5 million to $10 million.

For Zoll, that's the worst-case scenario. Things will be a bit better if the Senate approves the reconciliation bill passed on Sunday by the House. One of the "fixes" in the reconciliation bill would impose a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, going into effect in 2013. Even though it would cost the company about the same amount of money, Zoll executives prefer that scenario, if only because the delayed onset would give them time to prepare.

No matter what happens, the makers of the devices that save our lives are going to take a major hit.

Collectivism: destroys choice, competition, and lowers the standard of living...every time it's tried!

Obamic Tinnitus is that annoying constant ringing in your ears caused by the combination of Obama's pathological need to appear in public, talking, along with the odious Obamic insistence on lying to us.

Gibbs added that the President will speak and sign the bill tomorrow in the East Room -- right now scheduled to begin at 11:15 a.m. ET. This will be open press. Obama will then go to the Department of Interior to deliver remarks on the bill.

But, but... I thought the time for talk was over...?!?!? I WANTED the time for talk to be over...!!!!

Monday, March 22, 2010

We keep hearing people on the MSM echo-chambers poo-pooing others who associate Obama with socialism or other -isms. "Why, the very idea...!!! These people are just daft, saying such things about our president!"

Let's lay some ground-work here. I agree with what I understand is the Nockian notion that all Big Government thinkers and practitioners are COLLECTIVISTS. There are, to be sure, taxonomic distinctions between socialists, communists, progressives, and fascists, but at their root they all believe the same things respecting government and individual liberty. The latter is to be subverted to the former.

ObamaCare is, for instance, much more consistent with fascist economic policy than it is to socialism. Big government runs big business, preserving the fiction of some bastardized form of capitalism, while forcing consumption of the product "offered". The stereotypical corporatist collective, right here in the USA.

So, I don't get too twisted up about just what form of collectivism Obama is guilty of fostering; there is no functional difference relative to my loss of individual freedom. They are all deadly to liberty.

That said, let's at least be honest. Obama is a collectivist. His new BFF, the Wrong Rev. Al Sharpton, committed a "Washington gaff" (meaning he inadvertently spoke something true) just this last weekend:

There are many, many silver linings in the bleak times in which we live. One...not the least of them...is the rapid stripping away of veneers carefully applied over decades, layers of false colors self-applied by people of the collective to hide who they are, and what they believe.

Case-in-point: Bart Stupak. Only recently, many very perceptive and intelligent people were calling him "courageous", "principled", and "brave" in honor of his pretended stand against the abortion funding carefully included and more carefully obscured in ObamaCare. People on the Right believed him, perhaps mostly because we want to believe well of even our opposition. That is a vacant hope, as we've been taught so often before. Still, we revert.

I frankly wondered how anyone of integrity could ever label themselves "Democrat" after Bill Clinton. I still do, and more so after ObamaCare. Therein lies the lesson; nobody of any integrity can call themselves a Democrat. That is the rule, and we may all state exceptions. It is still the rule. Remember it.

Bart Stupak is not stupid; he was not duped by the Svengali Obama. He caved. The whole "executive order" deal was a fig-leaf, impure and simple. Before he caved, he was bought for a fairly puny mess of pottage in the form of bucks for a few rural airports in his district.

As to the promised executive order, it will last (if it is ever really issued) precisely as long as it takes to bring a court challenge. It will then be simply dust...a fine form of dirt.

I am in mourning for America, for its ideals, its promise, and its continued existence in its present form as anything but a dwindling, diminishing mediocrity, destined to be brought low by its many enemies. As Mark Steyn observed at The Corner, one inevitable consequence of intentionally bankrupting the United States will be the shifting of resources away from defense, and into an effort to prop up the entitlements that are our new replacement for liberty...for a time. Another will be that Americans will cease to be who and what we have been, and revert to a more ancient form; the supplicant and the serf.

I mourn for the entire concept of a "loyal opposition", to the extent that had any currency before last night. It is gone now; utterly and completely gone. The people who have done this to my nation...to my personal liberty...are not in any sense "loyal" to anything I value. Not to truth. Not to the rule of law, or the rules of much of anything. Not to rational action...what we call "common sense". Not to any principle of our founding, or of freedom. Not to any notion of restrained power. Whatever they are "loyal" to, it is such a foreign thing that I do not recognize it as part of my world. Nor do I wish to.

I mourn for my children and grandchildren, who, if this is not somehow reversed, will never know what I have known, but instead will know increased control, want, powerlessness, and fear. They will know less and less opportunity in a shrinking economy, less and less income, and their government will demand more and more of their diminished livelihoods while intruding more and more into their diminished lives.

I mourn for a world that has...literally overnight...become less safe, and less free. This nation has been the place for distressed people to look to for succor. It has been the place that our collectivist friends in the world have relied on for defense against more aggressive collectivists. It has been the place where people who would live free resorted to as their preferred home, or their last resort. Those things about America are now changing. They are not gone, but they will now start going.

I mourn, most of all, for lost potential. That nebulous, unrealized next new thing that would have been, but now will not be because the vitality has been sucked out of our nation. It would have been wonderful, it would have changed lives, or made them longer or more poignant, or made us stronger and safer. Now it won't.

I said that I am hopeful. I am. I am hopeful despite so clearly seeing the train-wreck that will now unfold if this "transformative event" is not reversed. I think that it can be reversed, and I certainly have a heart to do it.

Elsewhere, people have been asking how they can mount a court challenge to ObamaCare if Demon Pass is signed. Note, I did not say, "...signed into law". I think there are numerous things about this take-over of health-care...NOT insurance reform...that are patently unlawful.

The simple fact is that individual Americans would have no standing to fight this through the courts. That precedent is nearly as old as the Republic, if memory serves.

That NEVER means that individual Americans would be powerless...that they should just roll over and comply. I suggest that we must do the opposite.

I fully expect there will be very good, well-founded and well-financed challenges coming from groups and officials. There should be.

But individual citizens can defy this "law", and I suggest they should. I assure you, I will be. That will provide any of us who are prosecuted the standing we otherwise could not have. And no American citizen should obey a law passed in defiance of the Constitution.

I hope many, many Americans will agree. If they cannot themselves join the insurrection, they can contribute to the legal defense of those who do.

There is an important lesson here...one that conservatives must learn and enforce on their legislators in the future.

The Constitution matters. Nobody cuts corners, and violates the Constitution...even a little bit...without enormous risk. The motives may be pure, the immediate consequences nil, but ignoring the founding charter of our nation for the sake of expediency leads us to the kind of despicable perversion we see in Slaughter's proposed rule.

The terrible power of precedent is put into play, as we see now. That the precedent set is tortured beyond credulity does not matter, as any law student knows. Thereafter, the new precedent...often unrecognizable as the logical extension of what they did by the authors of the preceding one (because it isn't logical)...becomes the new place-holder that creative, unprincipled people will try to move further down the road to ruin.

For far, far too long in the United States, we have failed to aggressively defend the Constitution from ourselves.

Let all of us who love the Constitution take a lesson from this episode. Bring the founding compact of our nation out of the drawer, and guard it jealously against even our friends.

Monday, March 15, 2010

But the old regime’s attack squads are relentless and shameless. The Obama administration, which put the brakes on any new investigations into Bush-Cheney national security malfeasance upon taking office, will sooner or later have to strike back. Once the Bush-Cheney failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran again come home to roost, as they undoubtedly and explosively will, someone will have to remind our amnesia-prone nation who really enabled America’s enemies in the run-up to 9/11 and in its aftermath.

That Rich is unhinged is a given. That he lies, distorts history, and seems an utter stranger to reality is a given.

Even Joe "Old Indefatigable" Biden, that Gibraltar of American foreign policy, has declared Iraq an Obamic success. Which, by necessity (if not Obamic statement), makes the Bush administration at least MOSTLY successful in that effort.

OK, stop right there. "A big Joe Biden fan"? Think about that for just a second... I mean, I love Ol' Joe's comedy routine as much as the next guy, but I don't think that's where Friedman is going.

The vice president is an indefatigable defender of U.S. interests abroad.

Stop again; "indefatigable defender"...? This is that same Joe Biden who advocated the trisection of Iraq, opposed the surge, and more recently sponsored the "over-the-horizon" strategy in Afghanistan, not to be confused with his "over-the-rainbow" strategy for dealing with neo-nuclear Iran (OK, I made that up...that one belongs to Obama).

So it pains me to say that on his recent trip to Israel, when Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s government rubbed his nose in some new housing plans for contested East Jerusalem, the vice president missed a chance to send a powerful public signal: He should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: “Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk.

We have to stop again. It is NEVER a good idea to mention "Biden" and "drunk" in the same sentence, Tom. Very, very poor marketing. But let's talk for a second about your condescension to Israel and its leader. Or, better still, we'll just let you demonstrate it some more...

You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious. We need to focus on building our country.”

"Building our country" sounds kinda like exactly what the Israelis were doing, Tom. They seemed to be "satisfying some domestic need" to act like a sovereign nation, the kind that is vital and developing. They seem to have this weird drive to conduct themselves like a proud, exceptional people. I know that Joe Biden and Obama are totally clueless about that, as are you, Tom. But try to understand that impulse, in the name of diversity.

It is hardly a big surprise to many who knew Obama to be the man he is before the election, but the American relationship with Israel has never been colder. You keep advising Joe Biden (Good Old Indefatigable), Tom, and it might chill to the freezing point.

And this administration might need a relationship above absolute zero, just so somebody can do something about those Iranian nukes.

"Meanwhile, I'll go farther. I say that the establishment media is, as a collective entity, intellectually and ethically corrupt. Not just liberal, but intellectually dishonest, often knowingly, to a stupendous degree."

Obama mouth-organ Robert "Fibs" Gibbs has, for the fifth time, declined to answer reporters' questions about the Sestak bribe allegation.

You may recall that Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak has alleged an Obama staffer offered him a high-level administration position if Sestak would forebear running against Sen. Arlen "Sphincter" Specter (Turncoat, PA).

The administration has--one time--denied Sestak's claim. Gibbs has five times dodged addressing it since.

This leads a keen observer of human nature, especially the behavior of liars, to conclude two distinct likelihoods:

1. Sestak's story is substantially true; and,

2. There exists some evidence showing that the story is true.

Gibbs' behavior leaves very little in the way of other options. Byron York asks in the piece linked to (above), "How long will the Sestak Stonewall continue?". If deduction serves, Mr. York, it will last as long as it can, because the Obama administration is guilty as charged. Stonewalling, and hoping the story goes away, is all they have.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Glenn Beck, who says a great many things, says some things (because he's human) that are simply wrong.

But he wasn't wrong about the term "social justice" being an example of collectivist code.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, in attacking what Beck said, proved Beck's point admirably.

According to the Rev. Wallis, God just can't abide poverty. According to Wallis, Jesus came specifically to save the poor.

Either the man is a liar or he missed the whole point of Christian theology. Those are our options. Why such a harsh choice? Because Wallis, typical of collectivists, tortures language in pursuit of fostering the ends of the collective, and he attempts to pervert ideas.

Christ, if one reads the New Testament with even a modicum of understanding, was not talking about "the poor" in any earthy sense MOST of the time. He did not preach economics, or state-sponsored redistribution, or that anyone should take someone else's choices of how to use their property. He never suspended the commandment about stealing...regardless of your rationale for the theft.

Christ, as reported in the Gospels, more importantly used the term "poor" to address those who were "poor in spirit", or humble enough to hear his teachings.

This is not to say that he never used the term "poor" to describe an earthly dearth of the necessities of life. He did. He commanded his followers to voluntarily give of their substance to help the poor. We call that "charity". It was not a new concept in New Testament times. The Jews had received the same commandment in different terms centuries before, more than once.

But Wallis (I listened to him say it) simply recites the many times the term "poor" is recited in the New Testament, and never makes any attempt to delineate the meaning of "poor". This is an intentional distortion, IMNHO.

Christian Fundamentalists are OFTEN mocked by sophisticates for their literal interpretation of specific terms in scripture, imposing more-or-less current usage on terms that may have been used quite differently by people in history. How is the Rev. Wallis not doing exactly that?

Can Wallis' misuse of "poor" even withstand some light application of reason? Hardly. Consider, does Jesus appear to approve of a person who, while impoverished in earthly terms, hates God, his fellows, and all that is good? Conversely, did Jesus approve of people who had a great deal of earthly wealth or power, and who were prepared to love God? On which type of soil was the seed of Christ's teachings apt to grow?

Is Beck's larger, non-theological, historical point (the only one he was attempting) well made; that "social justice" as preached by perverse pastors of various religious denominations is, in fact, a call for some form of state collectivism? Well, yes. It certainly is. There is a long and sordid history of Christian pastors preaching collectivist dogma. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind, as do several present-day prophets of "taking".

Is there an argument suggesting that when people use the term "social justice" they are not advocating a state-sponsored collectivism? Sure. But that usage is FAR less common, both currently and in history. People who use the term without thinking about what it has meant, and means now, in its greater usage, need to be careful to define how they mean it.

Among Christians and Jews (especially those two traditions), there is a danger that concepts of helping others through charity or compulsion are readily confused. People like Rev. Wallis work at fostering that confusion. And the two concepts are at opposite poles of morality.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Ah, I got your answer hangin' right here, Howell...

First, it is unprecedented for Fox to have beaten your MSM chinos down around your ankles. But just because it hasn't happened before, don't bet it won't be happening more in future. Ever hear of Breitbart?

Second, if the collective's "old-school news organizations" could damage Ailes, they would have done so LONG ago. They busted their collective guts trying already, along with the President Of The United States. Now, THAT was a "propaganda campaign without precedent in our modern political history"!!!

The collectivist old media have a much more central problem...remaining viable and producing any damn thing that Americans want to consume...I mean except for birdcage lining (see "David Brooks").

For the Democrats, expanding health care coverage is an emotional hot spot. Over the past year, Democrats have fought passionately for universal coverage. They have fought for it even while the country is more concerned about the economy, and in the face of serial political defeats. They have fought for it even though it has crowded out other items on their agenda and may even cost them their majority in the House.

And they’ve done it for almost no votes. The 30 million who would be covered under the Democratic proposals are not big voters, while the millions who would pay for the coverage are strikingly unhappy.

There is something morally impressive in the Democrats’ passion on this issue. At the same time, it’s interesting to compare it to their behavior on other issues in which they have no emotional investment.

There is something intellectually...and morally...astounding about Brooks' take in his ramblings. He simply does not, and will not, get it.

This is not about the collectivist's "emotional investment". As events amply demonstrate, these are not people acting out of "emotion". The health-care take-over the collective has been attempting is a saga of crass, cynical power, focused on a fundamental revolutionary goal. That goal, over which they are so willing to spill so much of their own political life-blood, is the extension of federal control over the daily lives of Americans.

Brooks suggests this is about an altruistic spasm, emanating from deep in the bleeding heart of liberalism. It is so powerful, he offers, that it drives them to commit political acts that are suicidal, and all for "almost no votes". This is silly.

For one thing, votes don't matter here. Even politics don't matter here in any conventional sense, as even Mr. Brooks can discern.

The health-care push is about revolution. It is all about raw, intrusive power, hitting Americans literally where they live. And how they live. And even IF they live. It is, essentially, about "remaking America", and remaking Americans...at least those who will hold still for it.

Nobody who is not a cell of the collective can look at the catalog of astounding abuse of the political process (to say nothing of logic), the contempt for the will of the American people (think how often we've heard lately we're too stupid to appreciate ObamaCare), the sordidness of House and Senate "leadership", and the obvious corruption emanating from the White House down. This is not the stuff of a "moral" crusade, as Brooks suggests. Rather, this stinking cesspool of power-grubbing tells us volumes about the nature of what is being done here.

Assuming that health-care is in the particular dire straits we are told by THE ONE that it is, could a principled liberal not suggest fixes that do not involve sending Americans to jail? Could they suggest a fix that would not involve the federalization of our personal health information? Could they suggest a fix that did not destroy the insurance industry, converting it into a fascist corporatist collective, controlled by the central government and its bureaucrats? IF this were the emergency we have been told it is, why is the plan only going to be effective in the lives of people years down the road?

Indeed, a principled liberal could suggest other, effective, and less expensive fixes, and some have. So have conservatives and others. They were ignored. Fixing problems was never the goal.

David Brooks is patently WRONG about his "emotional" and "impressively moral" collectivists. But why am I saying there is something morally askew about his piece? Couldn't he be wrong without being immoral? Sure. But he is is putatively a smart man. He is nominally a conservative, according to himself. I assert it is morally wrong to volunteer to be stupid, to choose to ignore reality. I assert it is far MORE wrong to put such nonsense as Birdcage Brooks prints before people who may be influenced by it.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The point is, meeting with tea party supporters has been a surprising experience. It’s not politics as usual and the old rules about Red vs. Blue and D vs. R don’t apply. Like any large gathering, you’ll find a couple of people with some more fringe outlooks, and that seems to be who the television cameras focus on. (We had one couple at a recent meeting who were obviously birthers and wanted to ask about Obama’s birth certificate, but they were quickly shushed by the rest of the crowd.) But for the most part, each group seems to carry its own distinct flavor and topics of interest. The one thing they seem to have in common is that they are unhappy with the current leadership in D.C. and they have come to play a serious game. If you think you already know the tea party movement, there’s a good chance you don’t. It’s kind of like trying to say you know the ocean. It’s big, it’s powerful, it’s rarely the same twice, and you never know exactly what it’s going to do next.

Since Biblical times (actually WAY before that) mankind has known the value and necessity of salt--sodium chloride--to both sustain life and make it more enjoyable.

It was the nexus of one of Gandhi's most significant resistance efforts against colonial Britain.

But nanny statism knows no bounds...and very little science.

(h/t Redstate and Legal Insurrection)

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

I seem to recall reading that any tendency to adverse health effects from ordinary salt is only distributed in about 40% of the population.

Those with that tendency can control their diet.

Ortiz is not only a would-be tin-pot dictator, he's a scientific idiot. Not an uncommon juxtaposition...

I am deeply concerned by Attorney General Holder’s failure to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee his third-party brief in support of Jose Padilla’s Supreme Court case. Not only was the Attorney General required to provide the brief as part of his confirmation, but the opinions expressed in it go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security. This is an extremely serious matter and the Attorney General will have to address it immediately. It is essential that we have full confidence, and receive full candor, from the official leading the Department of Justice.

When Holder had the bright idea to try KSM in NYC, we started to hear rumblings that his days were numbered. That seems to have blown over as the administration walked back from that particular idiocy.

But, bit by bit, we may be approaching the tipping point that will see Mr. Holder returning to private practice. He should never have been nominated for Attorney General, much less confirmed. He is easily the most radical person EVER to hold his office, and his history should have easily disqualified him from consideration.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The term “acid test” derives from the chemical “gold standard” for determining…well…gold from other substances. Gold is amazingly resistant to several strong acids, which readily react with things not gold. Hence, if it is gold, exposing it to the right family of acids will confirm its character.

There were many, many things one could know about THE ONE long before his election, if one listened, read, and watched what he actually said and did. Not what he said in his more soaring oratorical moments (though many of those reveal a deeply disturbed man). No, it was in his books and in less guarded comments, or those made to collectivist-minded myrmidons in their salons, reported to us peons. To anyone who listened and watched, Obama was no mystery. As Charles Krauthamer has said, many of us are not disillusioned, as we were never illusioned in the first instance.

But, for slightly over half of the voting public in 2008, THE ONE was either the incarnation of Hope & Change, or at least an acceptable risk. To many Americans, he is still something of an unknown. That need not be.

There is an acid test. It is absolutely impeccable, and will tell anyone who applies it exactly who Obama is, and what he actually values. He is not who he claims to be, and his goals are foreign to what he pretends.

The test is on-going, in real time, and has been for over a year. Anybody can observe it, and its proceedings are elegantly simple and clear. No less a liberal bastion than the Washington Post has been reporting and editorializing about it.

The public schools in Washington, D.C. are notoriously bad. A modest federally funded voucher program was authorized some years back to offer some few kids an escape from D.C.’s public school monopoly. By every account, it has been successful, and parents and their children (dominantly people of color and modest incomes) love it. It has been empirically tested by a federally-funded study, and found effective. Community leaders in Washington are strongly supportive of it, including D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee.

But the National Education Association and other unionized "educators" want it killed; ergo President Obama, and his allies, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, are killing it. One of Obama’s first acts, inexplicably, was to close the program to new students.

"The president doesn't believe that vouchers are a long-term answer to our educational problems and the challenges that face our public school system, where the vast majority of -- of students are educated in this country"--Robert Gibbs.

This was a half-measure of the Senate Democrat leadership's original intention to just kill it. Ostensibly, those lucky enough to be in the program would graduate within it, but even that is dubious now. After those kids now enrolled finish, the program is sentenced to death by Obama and the party of competition and compassion. Hope & Change?

But Harry (“we deserve an up or down vote”) Reid and other Democrats in power in the Senate (including Dick Durbin) have cynically blocked recent moves by their colleagues to provide adequate funding for the voucher kids. Where is Obama?

There can be no more telling exposition of where this president’s heart truly lies. There can be no more eloquent statement of his actual, demonstrated treasures. They are not children. They are not the poor. They are not programs that are known to work. They are certainly not competition or choice. They are not the opinion of community leaders and experts...or voters.